End of the SUV?
Discussion
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/citroen/359477/elect...
According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
I don't think we will see the end of the SUV. It's what people want.
A quick google found this:
"If you look at the market in terms of bodystyle, crossovers/SUVs now account for 54.8% of all sales – another record."
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-car-sa...
The drag coefficent of the Tesla Model 3 and Y is the same. Although the model Y looks to weigh around 25% more
I just cannot see car manufacturers - despite the challenges you outlined - stop manufacturing for what has historically been around half the market. Presumably as battery tech improves (no idea how) then 300mile ranges will be available for lower weight?
I just wish there was something in the EV coupe/convertible sector so it will be interesting what the next generation of Boxster & Cayman look like and drive - plus the MGF roadster that has been announced.
A quick google found this:
"If you look at the market in terms of bodystyle, crossovers/SUVs now account for 54.8% of all sales – another record."
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/business-car-sa...
The drag coefficent of the Tesla Model 3 and Y is the same. Although the model Y looks to weigh around 25% more
I just cannot see car manufacturers - despite the challenges you outlined - stop manufacturing for what has historically been around half the market. Presumably as battery tech improves (no idea how) then 300mile ranges will be available for lower weight?
I just wish there was something in the EV coupe/convertible sector so it will be interesting what the next generation of Boxster & Cayman look like and drive - plus the MGF roadster that has been announced.
Otispunkmeyer said:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/citroen/359477/elect...
According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
If I was a PSA shareholder i'd be a little worried how out of touch someone so high up in the business is. According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
Bill said:
ChocolateFrog said:
If I was a PSA shareholder i'd be a little worried how out of touch someone so high up in the business is.
Even if you ignore their popularity, the SUV shape is perfect for hiding the batteries under the floor while also keeping the weight lower.Sub 2 mile/kwh efficiencies don't seem to be putting of Audi buyers.
Bill said:
ChocolateFrog said:
If I was a PSA shareholder i'd be a little worried how out of touch someone so high up in the business is.
Even if you ignore their popularity, the SUV shape is perfect for hiding the batteries under the floor while also keeping the weight lower.I have been trying for some time, with limited success, to explain that fixation on weight (or mass) for EVs is misguided.
The main reason being that regenerative braking and low rolling resistance tyres have reduced the effect of mass on vehicle efficiency to a fraction of what effect it has for an ICE.
Combine that with extremely efficient 'gearless' drivetrains, and the bad boy left standing in the way of super-efficient electric cars is aero drag.
It's probably worth taking a minute to recognise why efficiency is so important, not just because it is going to impact on the cost of running the car, but just as importantly, because of the effect it has on the upstream infrastructure.
We get the ever-present cries of the 'grid won't cope', and whilst that is easily debunked, there is of course the charging network to consider. And the fact that we are some way from 100% renewables, which is a very important piece of the EV puzzle, to make their adoption as worthwhile as possible.
Present day EVs are achieving something in the region of 2-4 miles per kWh (80-160 mpg), depending on the car and the way it is driven. And whilst that is between 3 and 5 times better than what an ICE can achieve, it can be significantly improved by better aero.
At an average of 3 miles per kWh, full adoption of EVs in the UK will increase the demand on the grid by about 30% over today's demand. It works out at about 1% increase for every 1 million EVs that are added to the roads. And it ignores any net decrease in electrical demand due to the displaced ICE fuel production, mainly because this is generally not an on-grid demand in the UK.
So whilst it is feasible to consider a 30% demand increase over the time it takes to add 30 million EVs to the road, it would make everyone's life easier and cheaper, all the way through from the infrastructure required to vehicle production to the end user, if that average could be pushed say 5 miles per kWh.
An increase from 3 to 5 is of course 67% better, which by conventional vehicle metrics would be a massive and probably impossible task in a timeframe that matters to anyone alive today. But that's where maths and science fall heavily in favour of batteries and motors. Much to the disappoint of many 'enthusiasts' I know. We all want to believe that petrol, or hydrogen or synthetic fuel can join the party, but sadly, for anything based on combustion and/or multiple conversion steps, it's never going to happen, simply because of the laws of the universe.
Essentially, because the combination of a power grid, battery and motor achieves such a high end-to-end energy efficiency to move the car (ALMOST regardless of its mass), the benefit of improving aerodynamic performance has a much greater effect on the car's overall 'mpg'. No other propulsion technology gets this benefit because the losses they suffer come from other sources, and are larger, which makes drag less relevant overall.
Electric cars therefore stand alone as the only way to achieve the sort of energy efficiency that will allow non-fossil-fuelled mobility to be available to everyone, at a cost and on a timeline that we can accept. Note that that statement DOES NOT mean available to everyone on day 1, it means available to everyone at the end of the transition.
Anyway, back to aero drag.
This is the single largest demand for energy that is determining how large the battery needs to be, which in turn determines the mass of the vehicle, along with adding marginal additional losses due to the marginal increase in mass.
Hence my point that fixating on mass is not the right way to go about it, the fixation should be on the first engineering principle that is defining that mass, not the mass itself, which is the secondary effect.
The fixation should be on drag. The problem is, we now come down to emotion over science, because people naturally care more about looks, status and to some degree, comfort.
So , how do we convince buyers to accept:
1. A lower drag coefficient, i.e. more streamlined (i.e possibly blander and/or 'odd-looking') appearance.
2. A lower frontal area, i.e. vehicle height x vehicle width.
There is of course limited opportunity to reduce vehicle width and maintain the ability to carry either 2 or 4/5 people in something resembling comfort. So it becomes more about height.
How do we get people out of 1.7 metre high cars into 1.4 metre high cars?
How do we get people to accept the way EVs need to look?
As a benchmark, we need to get this sort of thing to be the accepted form of appearance. Granted, the car shown does more than 7 miles per kWh, but there is no reason why a productionised version couldn't better 5.
The main reason being that regenerative braking and low rolling resistance tyres have reduced the effect of mass on vehicle efficiency to a fraction of what effect it has for an ICE.
Combine that with extremely efficient 'gearless' drivetrains, and the bad boy left standing in the way of super-efficient electric cars is aero drag.
It's probably worth taking a minute to recognise why efficiency is so important, not just because it is going to impact on the cost of running the car, but just as importantly, because of the effect it has on the upstream infrastructure.
We get the ever-present cries of the 'grid won't cope', and whilst that is easily debunked, there is of course the charging network to consider. And the fact that we are some way from 100% renewables, which is a very important piece of the EV puzzle, to make their adoption as worthwhile as possible.
Present day EVs are achieving something in the region of 2-4 miles per kWh (80-160 mpg), depending on the car and the way it is driven. And whilst that is between 3 and 5 times better than what an ICE can achieve, it can be significantly improved by better aero.
At an average of 3 miles per kWh, full adoption of EVs in the UK will increase the demand on the grid by about 30% over today's demand. It works out at about 1% increase for every 1 million EVs that are added to the roads. And it ignores any net decrease in electrical demand due to the displaced ICE fuel production, mainly because this is generally not an on-grid demand in the UK.
So whilst it is feasible to consider a 30% demand increase over the time it takes to add 30 million EVs to the road, it would make everyone's life easier and cheaper, all the way through from the infrastructure required to vehicle production to the end user, if that average could be pushed say 5 miles per kWh.
An increase from 3 to 5 is of course 67% better, which by conventional vehicle metrics would be a massive and probably impossible task in a timeframe that matters to anyone alive today. But that's where maths and science fall heavily in favour of batteries and motors. Much to the disappoint of many 'enthusiasts' I know. We all want to believe that petrol, or hydrogen or synthetic fuel can join the party, but sadly, for anything based on combustion and/or multiple conversion steps, it's never going to happen, simply because of the laws of the universe.
Essentially, because the combination of a power grid, battery and motor achieves such a high end-to-end energy efficiency to move the car (ALMOST regardless of its mass), the benefit of improving aerodynamic performance has a much greater effect on the car's overall 'mpg'. No other propulsion technology gets this benefit because the losses they suffer come from other sources, and are larger, which makes drag less relevant overall.
Electric cars therefore stand alone as the only way to achieve the sort of energy efficiency that will allow non-fossil-fuelled mobility to be available to everyone, at a cost and on a timeline that we can accept. Note that that statement DOES NOT mean available to everyone on day 1, it means available to everyone at the end of the transition.
Anyway, back to aero drag.
This is the single largest demand for energy that is determining how large the battery needs to be, which in turn determines the mass of the vehicle, along with adding marginal additional losses due to the marginal increase in mass.
Hence my point that fixating on mass is not the right way to go about it, the fixation should be on the first engineering principle that is defining that mass, not the mass itself, which is the secondary effect.
The fixation should be on drag. The problem is, we now come down to emotion over science, because people naturally care more about looks, status and to some degree, comfort.
So , how do we convince buyers to accept:
1. A lower drag coefficient, i.e. more streamlined (i.e possibly blander and/or 'odd-looking') appearance.
2. A lower frontal area, i.e. vehicle height x vehicle width.
There is of course limited opportunity to reduce vehicle width and maintain the ability to carry either 2 or 4/5 people in something resembling comfort. So it becomes more about height.
How do we get people out of 1.7 metre high cars into 1.4 metre high cars?
How do we get people to accept the way EVs need to look?
As a benchmark, we need to get this sort of thing to be the accepted form of appearance. Granted, the car shown does more than 7 miles per kWh, but there is no reason why a productionised version couldn't better 5.
The end? Its only just the beginning. SUVs and crossovers are taking up more market share year on year. People choose the body style they want first, then the one that they prefer for varying reasons. They are far too popular to disappear unless someone comes up with a body style that suddenly becomes more fashionable.
The buying public are not petrol heads, they want a bigger, better and shinier car than their neighbors, plus the more badge the better. Out of the top 10 best selling cars last year, 7 are SUVs/Crossovers, as well as 4 of the top 10 EVs, with more SUV EVs being launched.
The buying public are not petrol heads, they want a bigger, better and shinier car than their neighbors, plus the more badge the better. Out of the top 10 best selling cars last year, 7 are SUVs/Crossovers, as well as 4 of the top 10 EVs, with more SUV EVs being launched.
Otispunkmeyer said:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/citroen/359477/elect...
According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
Tosh.According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
GetCarter said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/citroen/359477/elect...
According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
Tosh.According to Citroen boss...EV spells the end of the SUV as we know it. Poor aero leading to reduced range and a need to fill the cars with huge battery packs to compensate. They become too heavy, too blunt and not sustainable.
Thoughts?
GT9 said:
I have been trying for some time, with limited success, to explain that fixation on weight (or mass) for EVs is misguided.
The main reason being that regenerative braking and low rolling resistance tyres have reduced the effect of mass on vehicle efficiency to a fraction of what effect it has for an ICE.
Combine that with extremely efficient 'gearless' drivetrains, and the bad boy left standing in the way of super-efficient electric cars is aero drag.
It's probably worth taking a minute to recognise why efficiency is so important, not just because it is going to impact on the cost of running the car, but just as importantly, because of the effect it has on the upstream infrastructure.
We get the ever-present cries of the 'grid won't cope', and whilst that is easily debunked, there is of course the charging network to consider. And the fact that we are some way from 100% renewables, which is a very important piece of the EV puzzle, to make their adoption as worthwhile as possible.
Present day EVs are achieving something in the region of 2-4 miles per kWh (80-160 mpg), depending on the car and the way it is driven. And whilst that is between 3 and 5 times better than what an ICE can achieve, it can be significantly improved by better aero.
At an average of 3 miles per kWh, full adoption of EVs in the UK will increase the demand on the grid by about 30% over today's demand. It works out at about 1% increase for every 1 million EVs that are added to the roads. And it ignores any net decrease in electrical demand due to the displaced ICE fuel production, mainly because this is generally not an on-grid demand in the UK.
So whilst it is feasible to consider a 30% demand increase over the time it takes to add 30 million EVs to the road, it would make everyone's life easier and cheaper, all the way through from the infrastructure required to vehicle production to the end user, if that average could be pushed say 5 miles per kWh.
An increase from 3 to 5 is of course 67% better, which by conventional vehicle metrics would be a massive and probably impossible task in a timeframe that matters to anyone alive today. But that's where maths and science fall heavily in favour of batteries and motors. Much to the disappoint of many 'enthusiasts' I know. We all want to believe that petrol, or hydrogen or synthetic fuel can join the party, but sadly, for anything based on combustion and/or multiple conversion steps, it's never going to happen, simply because of the laws of the universe.
Essentially, because the combination of a power grid, battery and motor achieves such a high end-to-end energy efficiency to move the car (ALMOST regardless of its mass), the benefit of improving aerodynamic performance has a much greater effect on the car's overall 'mpg'. No other propulsion technology gets this benefit because the losses they suffer come from other sources, and are larger, which makes drag less relevant overall.
Electric cars therefore stand alone as the only way to achieve the sort of energy efficiency that will allow non-fossil-fuelled mobility to be available to everyone, at a cost and on a timeline that we can accept. Note that that statement DOES NOT mean available to everyone on day 1, it means available to everyone at the end of the transition.
Anyway, back to aero drag.
This is the single largest demand for energy that is determining how large the battery needs to be, which in turn determines the mass of the vehicle, along with adding marginal additional losses due to the marginal increase in mass.
Hence my point that fixating on mass is not the right way to go about it, the fixation should be on the first engineering principle that is defining that mass, not the mass itself, which is the secondary effect.
The fixation should be on drag. The problem is, we now come down to emotion over science, because people naturally care more about looks, status and to some degree, comfort.
So , how do we convince buyers to accept:
1. A lower drag coefficient, i.e. more streamlined (i.e possibly blander and/or 'odd-looking') appearance.
2. A lower frontal area, i.e. vehicle height x vehicle width.
There is of course limited opportunity to reduce vehicle width and maintain the ability to carry either 2 or 4/5 people in something resembling comfort. So it becomes more about height.
How do we get people out of 1.7 metre high cars into 1.4 metre high cars?
How do we get people to accept the way EVs need to look?
As a benchmark, we need to get this sort of thing to be the accepted form of appearance. Granted, the car shown does more than 7 miles per kWh, but there is no reason why a productionised version couldn't better 5.
Great Post. What sort of timescale do you envisage? Could the motor be mounted in each wheel for a low power variant thefore simplifying further?The main reason being that regenerative braking and low rolling resistance tyres have reduced the effect of mass on vehicle efficiency to a fraction of what effect it has for an ICE.
Combine that with extremely efficient 'gearless' drivetrains, and the bad boy left standing in the way of super-efficient electric cars is aero drag.
It's probably worth taking a minute to recognise why efficiency is so important, not just because it is going to impact on the cost of running the car, but just as importantly, because of the effect it has on the upstream infrastructure.
We get the ever-present cries of the 'grid won't cope', and whilst that is easily debunked, there is of course the charging network to consider. And the fact that we are some way from 100% renewables, which is a very important piece of the EV puzzle, to make their adoption as worthwhile as possible.
Present day EVs are achieving something in the region of 2-4 miles per kWh (80-160 mpg), depending on the car and the way it is driven. And whilst that is between 3 and 5 times better than what an ICE can achieve, it can be significantly improved by better aero.
At an average of 3 miles per kWh, full adoption of EVs in the UK will increase the demand on the grid by about 30% over today's demand. It works out at about 1% increase for every 1 million EVs that are added to the roads. And it ignores any net decrease in electrical demand due to the displaced ICE fuel production, mainly because this is generally not an on-grid demand in the UK.
So whilst it is feasible to consider a 30% demand increase over the time it takes to add 30 million EVs to the road, it would make everyone's life easier and cheaper, all the way through from the infrastructure required to vehicle production to the end user, if that average could be pushed say 5 miles per kWh.
An increase from 3 to 5 is of course 67% better, which by conventional vehicle metrics would be a massive and probably impossible task in a timeframe that matters to anyone alive today. But that's where maths and science fall heavily in favour of batteries and motors. Much to the disappoint of many 'enthusiasts' I know. We all want to believe that petrol, or hydrogen or synthetic fuel can join the party, but sadly, for anything based on combustion and/or multiple conversion steps, it's never going to happen, simply because of the laws of the universe.
Essentially, because the combination of a power grid, battery and motor achieves such a high end-to-end energy efficiency to move the car (ALMOST regardless of its mass), the benefit of improving aerodynamic performance has a much greater effect on the car's overall 'mpg'. No other propulsion technology gets this benefit because the losses they suffer come from other sources, and are larger, which makes drag less relevant overall.
Electric cars therefore stand alone as the only way to achieve the sort of energy efficiency that will allow non-fossil-fuelled mobility to be available to everyone, at a cost and on a timeline that we can accept. Note that that statement DOES NOT mean available to everyone on day 1, it means available to everyone at the end of the transition.
Anyway, back to aero drag.
This is the single largest demand for energy that is determining how large the battery needs to be, which in turn determines the mass of the vehicle, along with adding marginal additional losses due to the marginal increase in mass.
Hence my point that fixating on mass is not the right way to go about it, the fixation should be on the first engineering principle that is defining that mass, not the mass itself, which is the secondary effect.
The fixation should be on drag. The problem is, we now come down to emotion over science, because people naturally care more about looks, status and to some degree, comfort.
So , how do we convince buyers to accept:
1. A lower drag coefficient, i.e. more streamlined (i.e possibly blander and/or 'odd-looking') appearance.
2. A lower frontal area, i.e. vehicle height x vehicle width.
There is of course limited opportunity to reduce vehicle width and maintain the ability to carry either 2 or 4/5 people in something resembling comfort. So it becomes more about height.
How do we get people out of 1.7 metre high cars into 1.4 metre high cars?
How do we get people to accept the way EVs need to look?
As a benchmark, we need to get this sort of thing to be the accepted form of appearance. Granted, the car shown does more than 7 miles per kWh, but there is no reason why a productionised version couldn't better 5.
Love the car BTW but would like ground clearance, bigger boot and about £15k otr
Edited by PositronicRay on Saturday 14th January 16:54
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff